W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2007

Re: css constants

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:45:18 +0100
Message-ID: <46D3D28E.6030204@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
>> And of course, constants are useful in dynamic environments
>> if and only if their definition can be changed through the
>> CSS OM...
> 
> Why "only if .. can be changed"? Could you explain real world scenario?

I think the point being made is that constants would be a redundant 
feature which would break backwards compatibility of the page with no 
benefit for the user of the page.  There could be benefits if the 
"constants" were run time variables, but otherwise, the right solution 
is to pre-process the CSS no later than the time that it is served from 
the server, and therefore a local issue for the authoring tools or server.

Using selector groups, one can always avoid repeating properties, and, 
with proper use of semantic based classes, and assuming no gratuitous 
styling, one can do so with a minimum of repeats of the selector.  Such 
style sheets tend to make the way that the styling represents the 
structure much clearer than repeating the same colour name in many places.

Note this is a frequently rejected request.

(I think another concern is that this is the thin edge of the wedge of 
turning CSS into a general purpose programming language (likely with all 
the associated security risks)).
> 
> Andrew Fedoniouk.
> http://terrainformatica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 07:45:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:52 GMT